In this sense, when an employee who has had contact with clients leaves a competitor, an employer should take steps to protect the customer relationship, such as.B. inform the client that the former employee has left and introduce the client to his new contact with the employer. Keeping communication open with customers is important for another reason: customers are often the first to report that a former employee is claiming clients from the former employer in violation of competition bans. Again, such communications must be treated with care in order to limit exposure to allegations of defamation by the former employee. Effective agreements on paper do little to protect an employer`s interests unless the employer is willing to take steps to assert its rights. Employers should consistently treat outgoing workers engaged in anti-competitive activities, (i) remind them of their persistent redundancy obligations, (ii) immediately send “cease and desecate” letters when they learn that they are engaged in competitive activities and (iii) be prepared to take immediate legal action if they do not comply with the employer`s requirements. Being prepared and willing to take appropriate action can prejudge the threat to the employer`s business interests before injury occurs and, perhaps just as importantly, send the message to current and former workers of the employer and its competitors that the employer takes the threats of unfair competition seriously. Second, an exit interview can be useful for gathering information, for assessing the threat posed by an outgoing employee. Too often, workers leave their jobs stating that they are “following other opportunities,” but they immediately start working for able competitors who violate their non-competition obligation. A former employer may not be aware of an offence until weeks later, after significant harm has been caused and the ability to impose non-competition prohibitions has been compromised. Most states follow a kind of standard that a non-compete agreement should not be monstrous in time or geographically and should not usefully limit a worker`s ability to find a job. However, the jurisdiction is very different in terms of interpreting the terms of a non-competition clause that would be too cumbersome.
There is also a strong argument that a worker dismissed for refusing to sign an unreasonable contract so as not to compete may be entitled to relief of charges against the employer in violation of that public policy. The results of these public policy claims vary from state to state. In the Netherlands, non-competition bans (non-simultaneous or concurrent) are permitted for issues such as switching to a new employer and bringing the former company`s customers closer together. Unreasonable clauses can be struck down in court.  Except in cases where a business is sold, competition restrictions of more than one year cannot be imposed. In some areas of activity, six months may be more appropriate. In addition, it is not uncommon to set different deadlines for different types of restrictive alliances. For example, an agreement may provide that non-competition agreements last six months, while the non-recruitment agreement for clients is maintained for one year and the non-disclosure agreement for confidential information is maintained indefinitely. Item-dependent staff are limited to employer management, senior technicians and other staff members who have a duty of confidentiality. The scope, scope and duration of the non-competitive agreement are agreed by both the employer and the worker, and this agreement must not violate the laws and regulations.
NCCs are certainly one of the most common types of restrictive alliances, but there are many others. Each serves a specific purpose and offers specific rights and remedies. The most common types of restrictive alliances are: However, California courts will apply certain bi-invitational clauses